A Second Look at Texting and Driving

In Mr. Navarrete's editorial, he brings up  several good points about what the state of Texas should do with the use of handheld devices while driving.

Being that the technology involved with text capable devices has historically not been around very long, naturally things have to work their way through the system.  I don't think anyone that remembers life before smartphones thought that texting would take off like it did, but it certainly has become a problem to contend with.  As Mr. Navarrete said, it is often compared to being intoxicated with alcohol while driving. Well in Texas, there once was a time where trips from A to B were measured by saying, “oh its about a 6 pack away.” This was the norm as for quite some time in our nations history, drinking and driving was legal. But times change.

Being that federal law trumps state law, especially in the case of interstate vehicles like commercial vehicles, it has been illegal to operate any form of touch screen device while behind the wheel since January 2012. Most would agree that this is a good thing being that CDL drivers are working, and typically are hauling lots of weight. However, an argument could be made that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  This is especially true since the ratio of accidents is greatly on the side of non CDL drivers. Perhaps what is needed is more education on the matter at its infancy, rather than trying to be reactive about the situation and change habits after they’ve been strongly ingrained.

There’s such a fine line to be drawn with the issue of texting while driving. Creating a law that so broadly affects so many people would surely cause lots of turmoil, especially as people begin to cry foul just to get out of a ticket.  Everywhere you look, there are statistics on the use of smartphones while driving. Glancing at a phone for even one second takes your concentration away for X amount of seconds total.  All this is fine and dandy given optimal conditions and people. Where are the statistics on every time you turn around to check on the baby, or change the radio station or the other million things that are done in the vehicle while driving.  I'm certainly not advocating for texting while driving, but unless the human condition can be cured or made illegal, we are going to be stuck with distracted drivers. Technology is here to stay, and the best solution would be as Mr. Navarrete said, to make it illegal across to board. At least it would be one less thing for 16 year old Brittany to be LOLing about.

To Execute or Not to Execute?

To execute or not to execute?  That is the question.  A man by the name of Scott Louis Panetti was convicted of killing his two in laws back in 1992, and in 1995 he was sentenced to death.  Since then, he has managed to avoid his sentence by claiming insanity.  Is that sufficient for that state? Should he be put to death anyway? According to Texas the answer finally, is yes.

Since his conviction and sentencing, it has come to light that Panetti is not mentally well.  He represented himself in the original hearing dressed like a cowboy.  Most would agree this is already insane behavior given the gravity of the situation.  He treated it as if it was a game.  Is that reason enough to let him skip his death sentence?  The families of the two people that he killed would surely not agree.  How crazy could he be?  Someone obviously thought he was normal enough to marry, and believe it or not, that was his second marriage.

The insanity plea is one used often to get out of extreme sentences, but is seldom accepted.  Unfortunately for those that are actually mentally ill, if you don't have a sufficient paper trail proving insanity beyond a shadow of a doubt, you’re going to suffer the full consequence of your actions as if fully competent.  Panetti had years and years of paper trails showing that he had schizophrenia along with other mental disorders.  This, however is not enough for Texas.

The cost to house the average inmate in a Texas prison is $21,390 per year.  Panetti has been locked up pending execution since 1992, so the total cost to the state just for him, is $470,580. Divided out between all the tax paying people in the state of Texas, you have a number that is almost not noticeable, but hes just one person.  What about all the other people in similar situation.  Take them into account and the numbers start to rise, and one could begin to wonder; where do we draw the line? The state of Texas is essentially a business being run with the bottom dollar in mind, and when considering the life of an individual who is a convicted felon, with no chance of ever being released, and given his prior history, no chance of ever positively contributing to any form of society, why not take that bottom dollar into account and save the state and taxpayers the additional amount?  I doubt Panetti would, in his later years in prison, suddenly have a change of heart and contribute so vastly to society as to be awarded the Nobel prize.  

Laws and statutes are in place for a reason.  Some would argue they are solely for lawyers to manipulate so they can increase their share of the profits, but regardless they are there for a reason.  Whether Panetti is mentally ill, or just a great actor, he has been deemed a significant danger to society, and one that will never breathe another free breath. The great state of Texas has seen fit to execute Panetti on December 3rd.  Unless there is an intervention from a higher power, his days are numbered. Is it right? Should Texas continue to foot the bill indefinitely? Luckily the tough questions are left to others who get paid to answer them. Texans can sleep easy, knowing there's nothing they could have done.

The Controversy of Marijuana

Ms. Tran’s editorial about the dangers of marijuana and other illegal drugs was a very well articulated argument. I agree with Ms. Tran on the majority of her points. I also have a few comments and issues to elaborate on as well.

I believe that in America, in today's society, we are not ready to fully legalize marijuana.  Besides all of the negative attributes that go along with marijuana which are being fought so hard to keep illegal, there is a plague of ignorance in our country in regards to marijuana.  The people that fight to keep it illegal run smear campaigns and spread outright lies to fool the masses.  Conversely, the people that are trying to get it legalized like to convey the point that there is absolutely no side effects to marijuana, besides a guaranteed great time.  The reality of the matter is somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately most of the country just has to take someones word on the matter.

As Ms. Tran states, drugs have completely destroyed countless lives and families in our state. Obviously it is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.  The method best to address it is a hotly debated topic.  Should we pour countless more dollars into the drug war that will never truly end as long as there is money to be made?  Should we legalize some or all drugs and simply restrict them therefore increasing tax revenue and taking the market out of the hands of drug lords?  The best solution might be to look at other countries as a model, and look at our history as well.

Countries like Portugal, The Netherlands, and others in the European Union have either completely decriminalized most drugs, or have adopted policies that take a blind eye to drugs as long as its not encroaching on the well being of others.  One might then naturally assume that these places would become the new drug meccas where people want to come and party.  However, the studies that have been produced have shown that drug related deaths have dropped, drug related diseases have dropped, and that the people that have drug problems are more inclined to seek help knowing that they won’t be arrested. Would this system work in America?  Most would agree we are typically behind the curve when it comes to matters like this, so probably not.

The history aspect to bring up would be to compare the legalization of marijuana to the prohibition era of our country.  The difference is that even before the prohibition took effect, alcohol had a chance to come into the mainstream and lose the taboo of illicit substances.  In turn when the prohibition era was in effect, it became obvious rather quickly that alcohol was here to stay.  This is to many people quite an odd dichotomy, because it doesn't take a genius to know that alcohol has the potential to be incredibly dangerous and life destroying.  Most would agree that alcohol is a much worse drug than marijuana, but that taboo factor for alcohol has long since been dismissed.  It is only a matter of time for the same thing to happen with marijuana.

Are drugs dangerous? Absolutely.  Whether legal or illegal, drugs undoubtedly have the ability to destroy lives.  As Ms. Tran points out, legalizing drugs has the potential to draw more people, especially the easily impressionable, into its grasp. This is especially why regardless of what Texas and the US does, education is imperative.  People need to be completely aware of the risks of the substance they are ingesting, legal or otherwise.

Gay Marriage in Texas

Should gay marriage be legal in the great state of Texas?  The Majority of the voting block in Texas would probably agree that marriage is designated between a man and a woman, and would vehemently oppose the legislation which attempts to make this legal. However, there are mounting sums of people, both gay and straight, jumping on the band wagon to legalize it.  Regardless of the opinion, the country is changing and most believe same sex marriage in the state of Texas is inevitable.

Since gay marriage was officially banned in Texas in 1997, many have wondered when their day at equal rights would come.  Things continued to get worse as in 2003, even civil unions were banned.  One could argue that its par for the course in Texas for old white republicans to be against anything that challenges the status quo.  Unfortunately for those old white men, the year is 2014, and the tides are turning.  Since May 2004, when Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to allow gay marriage, slowly the other states have been following suit.  

Lawsuit after appealed lawsuit, state after state, it has become clear that having any form of ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. All these states that have become the stronghold for those that hope to retain a way of life more indicative of the old times, only now serve as a model to future generations of the hardheaded ignorant people, with beliefs that belong in the past.  Most would agree that its only a matter of time until same sex marriage becomes the status quo, and that form of archaic discrimination is a thing of the past.

In the long run, those individuals in the Texas political chain that are the ones holding onto the ban of gay marriage, would be better off realizing that that belief system is futile.  They may feel that doing so appeases their constituents, when what they are really doing is alienating an entire, typically affluent, voting block. When considering gay marriage, not taking into account politics, one could argue, “If you have such a problem with gay marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex!” In other words, being that gay marriage is a gay issue, and doesn't directly affect straight people, why should it matter to them that two people in love want the same right to enter holy matrimony just as Britney Spears had the right to her 55 hour marriage?

A same sex couple that is expecting a child by the end of March, now wishes for Texas to expedite the legal process so that they, by the birth of their child, will have the same legal ties to their child as any other expecting couple.  Who in their right mind could object to something so plain and simple as basic human rights? Simply put; Those that have something to gain by opposing.

The plight of the gay community may not have been as extreme as that of the African Americans of the 1960’s, but they do share their similarities.  They are both fighting for what they believe is right.  Similarly, different parts of the country have come around to the idea of equal rights at different times as well. Texas will soon be forced to follow suit as the last 20 states make the switch to acknowledge gay marriage and gay rights.  Hopefully for the residents of Texas, especially those that look back at this moment in Texas history, we aren't  the last state to give equal rights to all its residents.

Ebola and Tom Frieden

The editorial that I chose to critique was, “GOP Lawmakers Call for CDC Director Frieden to Step Down,” written in “The TexasFred Blog” October 16th, 2014.  As the title indicates, this blog entry refers to an article written about how the GOP feels that Tom Frieden, the director of the CDC, should step down.

The target audience would best be described as the right leaning conservatives that already have a chip on their shoulder about the Obama administration and wish to point fingers in his direction every chance they get. TexasFred is written by a man named Fred Witzell who self admittedly is an overly opinionated conservative redneck.  From what can be gathered from his blog, his entire credibility is derived from the numerous followers to his blog.

At points I agree with what Fred has to say, and at others I disagree.  Ebola coming into the US is a major ordeal, and one that, regardless of the cuts to an organization, should have had all the attention directed to.  The one substantial point that is made, is that Ebola coming into the US has shaken people from the idea that because they live in the greatest, and most advanced country in the world, that foreign disease can’t come and spread like we live in a third world country.  Essentially Ebola does not care where you’re from, what you look like or how high on the totem pole you may feel you are.  Everyone here has the potential to catch it if it is not taken care of in the proper manner from this point on.

That being said, the rest of the blog is basically drivel meant to stir up the base into hooting and hollering about how everything is Obama’s fault.  While arguably there is more proactively that could have been done on his part, possibly even micro managing to a degree to ensure that a disease that has the potential to have devastating effects, does not spread.  Fred emphasizes the fact that Tom Frieden was appointed to his position by President Obama, again to imply that everything bad is Obama’s fault.  

Regardless of whether you agree with Fred’s opinion on the article, or the even further extreme opinion that he has for the Obama administration, what would be appreciated in an editorial of this nature, would be something along the lines of possibly proposing another idea of how better to handle the situation.  Yes, getting rid of a bad appointee might help, but what might help Fred would be to give the reader a little insight into what Tom Frieden directly did wrong, and where he could have improved.

Ultimately there wasn’t much meat to the article.  Mainly some deep seeded opinions and anger.  Anger in a situation of this gravity is understandable, but what would help is deeper analysis and less pointing fingers at the other side.

Bullet train sorely needed in Texas?

    The editorial that I chose to critique was, “Bullet train sorely needed in Texas,” printed in the Houston Chronicle September 29th 2014.  It is an editorial written about the supposed necessity of a high speed train linking the cities of DFW and Houston.       
The target audience the author is trying to reach is a rather vast one.  A project of this magnitude would interest many people, especially those that travel between those cities frequently. I believe the author is mainly trying to reach out to those sympathetic to the cause of building this high speed rail, whether it be the frequent commuters or even those that might have some sway in the decision making process. The authors credibility is not accessible as the name is not divulged.     
I did not agree with the opinion of the author.  It was evident to me that the author was definitely for the building of this high speed train system without even addressing any of the other factors, such as necessity. One thing he does say is that there is frequently traffic between the cities.  This is just not true.  There may be traffic leaving the cities, but I-45 is a smooth running highway between these cities the majority of the time.  He also did not address the fact that there would be considerable traffic inside the cities just to get to the train station. Yes, a 90 minute or less train ride would be lovely, but then what?  Neither Dallas nor Houston are cities conducive to being car-less.  Public transportation is certainly no where near the level as it is in places like New York City.  Regardless of the possibility of being able to secure a form of transportation once in one of these cities, it negates to take into account the fact that there is already a rapid method from one city to the other.  Hobby airport to Love field for for $152.  High speed rail sorely needed? Not so much.    
Another considerable factor that the author did not take into account is the environmental factor, which, depending on who you talk to, is the most important benefit to this form of mass transportation. He did not address the potential benefit to the environment if this form of transportation was to catch on and become the norm for travel between these cities.  What he did bring up was about the apparent race with California to get these systems up and running.  Whichever state gets their working first will the be the first in the nation to have such a system.     
The author mentioned that the project would be privately funded.  While that means that the state and even federal government will not have to put this type of project into their budgets, there will still be a great need to governmental involvement.  The author mentions that there have been a plethora of meeting with TxDOT in various cities in Texas to inform the curios and otherwise involved.       
The article was a brief and vaguely informative editorial about the proposed high speed rail system linking DFW to Houston.  The author gave few details of the project, but was sure to make it evident that Texans were now in a race with Californians.  

Point Austin

   The Austin Chronicle: "Point Austin: Three Cheers for Spelman" was the article that I chose to read.  This article goes over the proposed budget for the 2015 fiscal year.  Specifically, the article details the requested growth of the Austin Police Department.  

    The APD was requesting 59 additional officers, and 38 additional civilian workers to aid the department.  Council member Bill Spelman was the individual that attempted to limit the additional expenditures that in his opinion were excessive.  The amount that was eventually proposed was 46 police officers.  According to the departments self reported data, there currently isn't enough of a workload to justify all 59 officers.  

    The reason I picked this article, is because it directly affects every Austinite.  It not only affects the pocketbook of the citizens of Austin through taxes, but also has the potential to affect the safety as well.  A fine balance is necessary between what's actually needed, and what's considered excessive. That's why we hold elections to pick the person we believe can do the job to the fullest and has our best interests at heart.  

    This is a great example of how government works from the the lowest level all the way to the federal level.  Every entity is expected to agree upon a balanced budget that reflects what is best for the people.